It is now two years since the “Microchip Law” – actually, The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 – came into force. The aim was definitely laudable:
“Not only will this mean the UK’s 8.5 million dogs can be returned to their owners more quickly if they wander too far from home, but it will also make it easier to track down the owners of dogs that carry out attacks on people.”
DEFRA, 6th April 2016
If you remember, at the time, many people were cynical. Some of the concerns were simple hysteria – that this was the first step towards microchipping people to control them, or that the microchips were bugs so the police could listen in to people’s private conversation (spoiler alert – they aren’t). However, there were some more reasonable worries – one commentator on the BBC summed up the worries of many people:
“If it won’t be enforced, which many new laws aren’t, what’s the point? Sensible dog owners already chip their dogs.”
Biffer, 6 April 2016
So, is the law working? Is it being enforced? Are our dogs spying on us? And ultimately, has it increased the number of dogs who are microchipped?
Is it being enforced?
Pets at Home recently made a Freedom of Information request about fines issued since the law came into place. One the surface, it does look like the law is being enforced – fines are coming in and there are prosecutions on record. However, when the data are broken down further, there are huge differences between local councils (you can read more and see the breakdown here).
The average fine per offense, for example, varies from £25 on the Isle of Wight (which also had the largest number of fines) to £1932.50 in the London Borough of Hounslow (who only had one).
The number of prosecutions is very variable too – while the Isle of Wight fined 34 people, they didn’t raise a single prosecution, while Coventry City Council prosecuted the most offenders – 19.
Overall, then, the enforcement of the law seems to be very patchy – but it is being enforced (and I suspect that at least one dog owner in London will be very careful to get their dogs chipped in future!).
Are our dogs spying on us?
Simple answer – no. Your mobile phone might well be, but not your dog’s microchip. A microchip does not contain a power source – it just reflects radio waves from the reader, modifying the “echo” to encode a number. While it would theoretically be possible to put a microphone inside a microchip, powering it would be really difficult. Likewise, we do not have the technology yet to put a GPS monitor inside a microchip and power it.
Finally, however, if the government really wanted to monitor us through microchips, they would have to provide their own chips, custom-made to their specifications. This has not happened – we’re still using the same suppliers we always have, many of whom are not UK based.
Bottom line – microchipping is safe for pets and for us!
Has it increased the number of dogs who have a microchip?
Well, here’s the great news – in 2013, only about 5 million dogs (about 60%) were microchipped. In 2015, less than a year before the law came into effect, the BVA reported that at most 75% of dogs seen by UK vets were chipped. However, in 2017 – a year after the ban – about 95% of dogs had a chip – so it seems that 1.6 million dogs received a chip as a direct result of the new law. Given that of the 43000 strays reunited with their owners by Dogs Trust in 2015-16, 20% of those would have been rehomed had they not been chipped, the more dogs that are chipped the better for everyone.
So, is the law working?
Essentially, yes. While Councils do need to keep working to pick up that last 5%, and the variability between areas suggests that some sort of unified guidance would be valuable, the increase in chipped dogs is a fantastic result.
Now, how about cats…??!!
Discussion
The idea that we would put a microchip in any living being is ghastly. I must wonder why you would want to do such a thing. I actually thing it should be illegal to microchip any animal or human. Much less fine dog owners for choosing not to put a chip in their pet.
We are the Veterinary businesses customers. The idea that my Vet would agree with the Government fining me, for deciding not to put a chip in my dog or cat, means you have contempt for the very people that pay your salary. This should be up to the owner.
This is a totalitarian measure. People have owned cats and dogs without microchips for centuries. And there is no justification for this to now be a finable offence.
If cats, then why not make it mandatory for fish, hamsters or pet birds? I’d love to see Vets trying to microchip a poisonous snake.
They want to normalise this so that they make it mandatory for children next.
We do it so that if the dog, cat or other animal – who cannot talk and say who he or she lives with – can be rapidly reunited with their owners. We’ve been doing this for decades, long before it became a legal requirement. And yes, we also microchip a wide range of rodents (including sometimes hamsters yes, although it’s uncommon), rabbits, horses, birds, lizards and indeed poisonous snakes (in fact, reptiles have a rather higher uptake of microchipping than many other types of animal, because they are often so valuable).
If you don’t like the law, fine – campaign to change it. But there are literally tens of thousands of cats who are stray or lost, don’t get rehomed and cannot be reunited with their actual owners because they are unchipped. that’s what this is attempting to improve.
Dear Mr Harris,
Thank you for your reply.
I did not say that I wouldn’t abide by the law. Unfortunately, if the law on cats requiring to be microchipped is passed we would follow it.
However, the reasoning doesn’t add up. There should be a high bar for something to be mandatory. I don’t understand why a stray can’t be identified by how it looks? Nearly every animal looks unique.
Surely most animals that are lost are found by their owners anyway? Especially with Social media to help reunite them. Mandatory microchipping seems 100% unnecessary.
Maybe the law is meant to criminalise reckless breeders? But if the stray is never sent to the vets and microchipped in the first place you won’t know who the breeder was.
Finally, a national register for cats and dogs with the name and address of all owners is required. Is Parliament mistaking the cat or dog for a firearm?
Unfortunately, like all professions, veterinarians have lost sight of what their original purpose was. They aren’t supposed to be political activists, utopians or hostile to the responsible pet owner.
Mr Evans-Hughes
I disagree that the profession has lost sight of its job: our job is and always has been “to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care”. You can read all about the declaration we make on entering the Royal College at graduation here. If this means lobbying for, for example, better animal welfare law, or changes to behaviour, then it is well within our historic scope for action.
The law is definitely not making a blind bit of difference because no body has overall responsibility for enforcement. I recently reported (on the advice of my vet) a breeder who sold me a puppy that, contrary to her advert had not wormed, flead, vaccinated or microchipped the puppy. The Trading Standards Department was not interested and referred me to Citizens Advice or the RSPCA. Incidentally they told me Citizens Advice would report the matter to them. Really? RSPCA are not interested.
We have to cite the law as it is. And in some situations the law is being enforced – it’s just not very uniform!